I just find it awesome that, the hoaxters (if it turns out to be a hoax) took into account the imperfections of the rolling shutter method so the orb
would look distorted too along the way. The orb distortions (and even the focal length changes) amazingly matches the rest of the overall scene
jello.

Pardon me for being impressed with the hoaxter, but I think the execution of video 2 is good attention to detail, especially executing simulations of
camera technology imperfections. Not just jittery hand held effects, but the effects resulting from camera jitter in combination with a rolling
shutter.

Follow up question for my future reference (I hope you don't mind): in general how difficult would it be to create a foolproof hoax involving putting
an object (e.g. a CGI rabbit) onto a MOVING landscape footage that was shot NATIVELY IN INTERLACED mode, where the resulting hoax footage
should also be interlaced. The requirement would be that, while possible to fake, it be foolproof.

edit on 1-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because:
caps

I mention interlaced because, like the rolling shutter, native interlaced footage creates artifacts related to time delay within a single frame. How
difficult would it be to composite an interlaced CGI rabbit onto a NATIVELY interlaced footage without anyone noticing? How would you handle
this?

...I just found it pretty funny how hardcore you guys were going on about the background, and than this random dude pops in with a video that
brings it all crashing down...

No, the video proves nothing other than perspective changes when the viewing positon changes.
There is no change in the viewing position in the UFO video, the camera appears fixed on a tripod.
It is not until the object disappears off screen before the camera pans upwards.

Zezba9000, your demonstration doesn't apply to this situation, and so is flawed.

In your demonstration you were using a target camera, and not a free camera. When you moved the camera left and right your camera was orbiting a fixed
target at a fixed distance, so the camera was traveling a curved path.

What you were doing was completely changing the perspective in order to achieve the same results that are shown on the UFO video. The UFO video
camera was NOT changing the perspective at all, and remained straight ahead.

So imagine you were crossing a road, and your perspective was perpendicular to the road, and it looked like this:

The only way to change the angles of the two lines is to change your perspective. Now imagine your perspective was parallel to the road, it would
look like this:

A one-point perspective.

Basically that is what you were doing in your video, changing the perspective by orbiting the camera. Your demonstration is accurate.. and it is
possible to change the angles of the two lines when you change perspective... however it doesn't apply to this UFO video, because the camera man never
changes perspective.

Im not so sure they would confess this early unless facing legal repercussions.After all Cohen is getting the traffic he wanted and is reaping the
rewards why quit now? As long as people are falling for it and it will be no time before he finds another hoax to publicize.

I have been seeing a story of the Israeli Air Force shooting down a UFO above it's nuclear plant as well. It's been on the news, and all over
Google.com if you search for it. The story differs between different sites. Out of the information I've gathered, it appears that the IAF scrammed
war planes, and shot the UFO out of the sky, with no debris found after. From past similar incidents, I don't believe we have the technology to take
down whatever these UFOs are, and they fired with a miss. IAF 0 - UFO 1

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Maybe you have poor depth perception because that is not what im seeing. And the "morphing" of the guy with a cell phone, his lower body that is
quite odd. You offered your opinion and interpretation however no proof. But if you care to enable the hoax have fun with that.

The laws of physics can be broken in unedited digital video:

This is why we have been sceptical of all the "debunks" based upon opinions on parallax and independent motion of screen elements.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
A UFO Lands in the middle of the city on top a national landmark and 2 men see it yet nobody else

It was 1am, people don't look above rooftops very much in general, there may be people that saw it and didn't report it. That's not really the
point though, the point is that before you can write something off as a hoax, you have to have conclusive proof. This probably is faked, but nobody
has proved it yet. Just pushing a video into the hoax bin based upon questionable evidence is embracing ignorance, not denying it.

My small contribution: I compared the small screen (aka video 2) seen in video 1 to the YouTube Video 2. At some moments the small screen is clearly
visible. The time I used for the picture is 2 seconds before the light descends. The two clearly do NOT match.

Regards

arit

In my opinion this is the best evidence so far that the video may be faked. I do not see any reason why the image on the phone's screen and the
image that the phone was supposed to be recording at the time would not match.

Just pushing a video into the hoax bin based upon questionable evidence is embracing ignorance, not denying it.

Here is the youtube video comment:

This video clearly shows Canon's HV20 "jello effect" caused by vibration. Some claim it is caused by the rolling shutter while others claim it is
caused by the optical image stabilization.

Hmm, exactly what i stated some 15 pages ago....!?¿!.. The tree to the right in the Jerusalem video mimics the roll bars of the ATV..

I also remember Mr. Mask putting his credibility on the line, stating nothing (camera lag, etc.) can cause these effects..Not attacking you I'm just
stating that your comment was slightly premature, and arrogant in my personal opinion..

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Maybe you have poor depth perception because that is not what im seeing. And the "morphing" of the guy with a cell phone, his lower body that is quite
odd. You offered your opinion and interpretation however no proof. But if you care to enable the hoax have fun with that.

The laws of physics can be broken in unedited digital video:

This is why we have been sceptical of all the "debunks" based upon opinions on parallax and independent motion of screen elements.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
A UFO Lands in the middle of the city on top a national landmark and 2 men see it yet nobody else

It was 1am, people don't look above rooftops very much in general, there may be people that saw it and didn't report it. That's not really the point
though, the point is that before you can write something off as a hoax, you have to have conclusive proof. This probably is faked, but nobody has
proved it yet. Just pushing a video into the hoax bin based upon questionable evidence is embracing ignorance, not denying it.

Here's an analysis tip:
Jello due to camera motion affects the whole content inside the frame.
Jello due to an object motion inside the frame affects only that object.
Goodluck analyzing footage involving both camera motion and object motion at the same time.

Also, jello is sideways if the imaging device scans horizontal lines in sequence (most devices), and up-down if the imaging device scans vertical
lines in sequence. I am not aware of any other scan patterns for CMOS consumer devices (except for global shutter which are rare).

As much as I'd like to debunk video #2, I find it difficult, mainly because the behavior of the orb is consistent with what you would expect when
shooting something like that using a rolling shutter device resulting in jello. I just can't find any inconsistencies in video #2 in that regard. It
appears like a perfect simulation of an imperfect technology (i.e., the rolling shutter method)

Each wobble and shape-distort of the orb is in accord with the overall jello of each frame all throughout the video. And since each frame will have a
unique "distort grid", any software used to hoax this must be aware of what that distort grid should look like based on what the frame looks like,
including the dark parts, and then apply that grid to the composited orb. An awesome feat of pattern reconstruction for a software to do
IMO.

I can't help but think that the dude/dudes/people/girls who made this fake video are laughing thier asses off right now as they troll all the typical
UFO boards and see people seriously discussing what is an obvious fake.

The fight to make this real, the video gurus coming out of the closet to do so, the believers crying it can't be faked......the skeptics ddragging
out their video knowledge.....blah! Why bother?!? The answer as to whether this holds an water can be pretty much concluded without even a hint of
video knowledge.

Guys, IGNORE THE DARN VIDEO. Let focus instead on the MAJOR things that are missing from this. Any takers? Can you smell what IngoreTheFacts is
cooking?

Wasting time debating a video with this content is a joke. There are far to many thing to discuss about it before you even have to get involved with
armchair "analysis" of the video to begin with.

Time to stop using our computers and start using our heads around here more often.

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
As much as I'd like to debunk video #2, I find it difficult, mainly because the behavior of the orb is consistent with what you would expect when
shooting something like that using a rolling shutter device resulting in jello. I just can't find any inconsistencies in video #2 in that regard. It
appears like a perfect simulation of an imperfect technology (i.e., the rolling shutter method)

So the video can't be debunked easily using the motion of the object as a telltale. I've tried looking at the effect of the flash by examining the
difference between two adjacent frames, one with and one without the flash, but can't see any telltale signs of digital manipulation there either.
The flash appears to light up the surrounding geography as it should.

The main doubt right now is why the cellphone screen we can see in the first video does not appear to be showing the image it should be recording at
that time.

Wow 49 pages already.
I have to be honest I didn't read them all, so if this has been posted, my apologies, but I didn't see any reference to this new video from another
perspective in any of the last pages so I'll assume it's new here.

Apparently someone else was also filming at that same time. This person was closer to the object.

But despite the technical jiggery pokery people must accept that the only places this story is featured are on UFO forums and not the Israeli press
and no web cams of that very public site have been revealed to show such a stunning object as yet.

Add to the fact that the 3rd video shows a very bright object that fails to illuminate anywhere around it even tho its shown to be very close to the
ground and it exhibits NONE of the 2 flashes so very brightly seen in video 1 & 2.

I have to agree with Ignore the facts, these people really must be laughing their tiny socks off at all this speculation that its real. Do people not
think that Israel press would splash this story all over the place, you have a UFO descending on top of a holy site in the middle of the Holy land,
flashing twice like some sort of message and then taking off at high speed.

What a symbolic story just begging to be milked rotten but NO, there's as far as I can see no press about it apart from Youtube and sites like us.

I am not impressed with some of the so called: "image experts" posting on ATS. I have noticed many flaws in the above archair quarterback style of
computer video analysis. I will post them for you all in further updates.

Here are two things for you to consider:

1. 1:00 A.M. the sighting happened very fast so finding other witnesses is not as easy as you think.
2. The original video shows the wall much darker looking until the person (who spent all day on their computer trying to find evidence of a hoax)
manipulated the contrast/brightness to make the wall more visible. This contaminated the evidence and probably caused compression.
3. The wall edge needs to be sharpened and more professionally analyzed.
4. Everyone with a keyboard and mouse considers themselves an expert on imaging.
5. The evidence for it being a hoax is "INCREDIBLY WEAK"

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.